American Forum Op-Ed

By Jose J. Soto and Deborah Waire Post

By Cynthia Richards

As Election Day nears, it’s hard not having the new political thriller “Cassandra, Chanting” on my mind. Written by an anonymous “election world insider,” it is about a race to reveal a high-tech plan to fix the upcoming presidential election after warnings about the precariousness of electronic voting have gone unheeded.

The novel’s title is apt. Surely all of us in the election integrity movement who have been speaking out about the dangers of this technology have felt like the mythical Trojan seer. Being dismissed as half-baked lunatics goes with the territory -- no matter how well-founded our concerns are. Recently, however, many states have begun to listen, and have taken bold action to protect the vote. Unfortunately, Missouri isn’t among them.

Missourians for Honest Elections has been working to alert Missouri voters and public officials about the issues surrounding electronic voting for several years. Unlike Cassandra, we don’t have the gift of prophecy. What we have – not acquired from Apollo but through our own dogged research is the gift of facts. The following are some of the most sobering:

Computer scientists have testified that a computer code that would flip an election can be easily written and hidden within an electronic voting machine’s operating code and remain undetected. This could be done during the manufacturing of the machine, or during the creation of software “upgrades” that vendors often say are necessary after the machine has been purchased.

The federal government has never conducted a thorough review of the operating code on any of the voting equipment currently used in the state. Neither has the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, nor any local election board. Even if a rigorous study were done -- which would require permission from the vendor and take months to accomplish -- experts say that it would be next to impossible to discover vote tampering instructions in the tens of thousands of lines of code they would have to scrutinize.

It’s also important to underscore that electronic voting machines currently used in Missouri have been proven to be hackable by voters at the polls. Studies have shown that the physical security of the Sequoia Edge (used in Greene, Cole, Butler and Calloway Counties), the Diebold (now “Premier”) Accuvote TSx (used in the City of St. Louis and Kansas City), and the ES&S iVotronic (used in St. Louis County) all can be quickly and easily bypassed. Moreover, this can be accomplished without any unusual equipment that might alert a poll worker. This should alarm election officials who proudly point to physical security measures they take when the machines are not in use -- such as locked doors -- which they believe are sufficient protection.

Given such vulnerabilities, it’s imperative that we be able to audit election results. However, of the two types of machines used in Missouri -- touch-screen vote counting machines (DREs) and optical scanners -- only optical scanners allow for an audit. That’s because the DRE doesn’t provide a software-independent record of the vote. The “paper trail” on the DRE runs on the same vulnerable software as the machine itself, and voters often neglect to check it. Therefore, election officials have no way of knowing if it is correct. By contrast, with optical scan voting, election officials have recourse to paper ballots that voters have marked by hand. These can be hand-counted for a truly software-independent audit.

Recognizing the risk of using voting equipment that is both subject to tampering and produces unauditable totals, many states have decided to scrap their DREs and use optical scanners exclusively (some deploying one DRE per polling place for the disabled). It would be easy for Missouri to do this too, since we already have enough scanners throughout the state. However, officials in the “Show Me State” seem be waiting for a catastrophe to convince them to make this change.

The Secretary of State’s Elections Division is aware of the disturbing facts presented above. But its response -- to provide “further education” to election officials -- is sadly inadequate. We applaud any effort to better train those who oversee our elections, but this cannot begin to address the issue. Missouri must put a stop to the general use of DREs. There is still time before November. And if this much-needed change does not occur before the election, Missouri voters should implement it themselves en masse by using paper ballots, which will be available at every polling place throughout the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richards is a steering committee member for Missourians for Honest Elections.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 10/08

By Suzanne Petroni

We’re in the waning days of the Bush administration and the ideologues are working furiously to get in their last licks. Women, including the most underprivileged and poor in the world, are their target yet again.

A third of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. The vast majority are women and children. Many are forced into marriage at 10 or 12 years of age. Many have six to 10 children, because they have no access to education or services, and no authority to decide on sexual matters in their marriages. As a result, more than 500,000 women die each year just because they get pregnant: they gave birth too young, too old, too often, or they live too far away from any trained health care provider. And increasingly, they are becoming infected with HIV/AIDS.

Controlling one’s own reproductive decisions is important for all women, but especially for women in poor families. Birth control is a critical component in ensuring that rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion continue to drop, and that women and their children are able to live healthy lives.

But even as the president and his colleagues prepare to pack up and leave Washington, they’ve continued to find more opportunities to take away these basic women’s rights.

Just recently, the United States Agency for International Development discontinued the provision of contraceptives to Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of the world’s leading family planning organizations. According to MSI, the decision will “seriously disrupt” family planning programs in at least six African countries – Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe - including one where the organization delivers 25 percent of all family planning services nationally. Women in these countries will be left with few options other than abortion, the majority of which will be unsafe and could very well result in their death or disability.

This is on top of the fact that for the past seven years, President Bush has blocked the congressionally approved U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). UNFPA works in 140 countries to provide poor women with family planning, maternal and child health, and HIV prevention assistance. This year alone, the U.S. contribution could have helped to prevent up to 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 unsafe abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, over 77,000 infant and child deaths, and prevented countless women and men from contracting HIV/AIDS.

And of course in one of his first acts as president, Bush restored the Global Gag Rule, severely restricting groups that work in the developing world from providing much-needed family planning assistance. The move forced the closure of health clinics throughout Asia and Africa -- often the only providers of health care in their communities -- leaving millions in need.

But Bush’s apathy towards women isn’t just for those overseas.

Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed regulations that would deprive women of the right to make their own informed health care decisions. These regulations would allow doctors, nurses and other health care personnel to refuse to provide services that might offend their conscience. This includes not only the provision of abortion services, from which providers are already exempt under federal law, but could include contraception as well.

While we have made laudable progress in funding the fight against HIV/AIDS abroad, this progress has not been matched at home, where AIDS is now the number one killer of black women between the ages of 25 and 34. It’s not helpful that the federal government forces schools to teach programs that preach abstinence-only-until-marriage and bans discussing condoms, except to exaggerate their failure rates. Over 20 states, including Virginia, have now rejected federal abstinence-only programs, which have proven not only a complete waste of taxpayer funds, but have likely also caused harm to the students who are taught inaccurate information.

In these last few weeks of election season, Virginians should ask candidates for federal office where they stand regarding the health and welfare of vulnerable women.

Do they support the Bush policies of denying women access to contraception and providing young people with dangerous abstinence-only-until-marriage education? Or would they give women and youth the opportunity to live healthy lives and to be free to make their own educated decisions regarding their health?

The women of the world deserve better than what the Bush administration has provided, and the American people deserve wiser, more generous policies in our name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroni worked on health and women's issues at the U.S. Department of State from 1997 until 2001. She lives in Northern Virginia and manages a program at a foundation in Washington, DC, supporting comprehensive health programs for women and youth in the developing world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Virginia Forum. 10/08

By Ellen Bravo

It can happen anywhere.

Recently, I sat in a room in Milwaukee filled with people clutching Bibles and babies and spewing venom. They were visibly enraged.

Granted, there’s a lot to be angry about these days: the persistence of poverty in our community, the lack of resources for our children’s education, the number of people who can’t afford health care, the gang of hoodlums on Wall Street holding a gun to our heads, the fact that hard-working parents can be fired for staying home to care for a sick child, and the continuing number of soldiers in harm’s way.

But the object of the rage of folks surrounding me wasn’t any of these things. It was the loving, long-term, committed relationships of people who happen to love someone of the same gender.

We were at a Milwaukee school board meeting, debating a resolution to end discrimination in benefits for same-sex couples in non-bargaining unit positions – estimated to be about 1 percent of staff in those jobs. The cost isn’t very much, especially considering an earlier item on the agenda about the need to retain experienced employees. Treat people right and they’re more likely to stick around.

Opponents weren’t content with expressing disagreement with the proposal. They littered their comments with hateful remarks about real people sitting directly across the aisle or in some cases in the next chair – people who simply want to build strong families and contribute what they can to their communities and who would certainly have preferred to be spending a warm fall evening playing in the park.

Someone had convinced this group that the loving couples they targeted were responsible for the problems in our society. Somewhere along the way, making life miserable for same-sex partners had become a path to easing the misery in one's own lives.

The angry speakers in the room, apparently without exception, consider themselves to be people of faith. I doubt any of them would condone physical violence against those they railed about. But I couldn’t help thinking how much their words of hate translate every day into acts that demean, diminish and discriminate against people whose chosen (and under-paid) profession is to educate our kids.

The opponents’ words, spoken defiantly in front of their own children – girls in pinafores and boys with scrubbed faces brandishing signs – in fact create the climate that leads to more than hurtful words or daily indignities. Their speeches give permission to those who beat people and tie them to a rail to die.

Fortunately, there were a number of others in the room, teachers and parents and a sprinkling of students who’d taken time to voice their support for domestic partner benefits. Among them were three clergy, each of whom reminded the audience that whatever one’s faith, we are called upon to act justly and promote community, not divisiveness.

The proposal passed the committee by one vote. The school board member casting that vote had been wavering on which way to go. Addressing the opponents, he announced his decision: “You swayed me to vote yes.”

His position reminds us that sometimes there is no middle ground. Either we stand with those who spread hate, or we stand on the side of the most basic American values of justice, equality and fairness.

Measures like this are on the ballot in several states and are increasingly coming up in legislatures, city councils and school boards around the country.

Regardless of where it happens, we must stand together to protect justice, equality and fairness for all Americans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo is an author and activist who teaches women’s studies at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Wisconsin Forum.

By Mark Stewart

For the last two years, as Lorain County auditor, I have felt obligated to fight against the city of Lorain’s retroactive tax-abatement program because it’s illegal, unfair, arbitrary, and harmful to county residents and institutions. The city of Lorain has found a way to shift its tax responsibilities to the rest of the state. Now, I feel obligated to bring this program to broader attention as it threatens to harm to all Ohioans.

In 2006, Lorain’s city council amended its previous tax-abatement ordinance to begin offering 15-year, 100 percent property tax abatements on homes on the city’s west side, most of which were already built and occupied, in return for exorbitant fees averaging $7,000 per home.

Basically, new home owners can pay a one-time application fee in lieu of paying property taxes for 15 years. Good deal, right? For the city it certainly is, because the money paid to get abatement is a "fee" and not a "tax." Under this scheme the city gets its hands on a windfall that doesn't come with requirements to fund services. So that means less money provided for education. Less money provided to libraries. Less money provided to programs serving the developmentally disabled. Property taxes come with specific allocations, but this "application fee" won't. So it's a sweet deal for the city, because without those required allocations they are free to shortchange on public services.

Historically tax abatement programs are intended to encourage new development that benefits the community. A municipality offers the incentive of paying lower property taxes in return for the construction of new homes. This is a tax abatement program’s “public purpose.”

In contradiction to Ohio law, Lorain’s program fulfills no public purpose. Lorain’s program boils down to city officials selling homeowners the opportunity to avoid paying their fair share of property tax. By offering homeowners the choice between paying application fee instead of property taxes on homes that have already been built, the city of Lorain is shifting the tax burden for these properties to the public while giving the public nothing in return. Most of the abatements under this program led to no new homes and no new residents because the homes and residents were already there. The only incentive offered through these tax abatements is to encourage the homeowners to stay in homes they already occupy, without requiring any additional community benefit.

These retroactive abatements are not only illegal; they are also unfair and arbitrary. If you can offer tax abatements on homes that have already been built, how do you choose which previously built homes get tax abatements? What makes one homeowner more worthy than another to have his or her property taxes waived, while the rest of us keep paying?

In a further distortion of our tax system, the fees homeowners are charged through this program are so high that the city of Lorain will take in more revenue by waiving these taxes than it would by having the homeowners pay them. Under this program, the city gets more while the schools, libraries, community college, and programs serving the mentally handicapped and developmentally disabled receive millions of dollars less.

To make matters worse, some of the costs of Lorain’s illegal abatements will be passed on to the state. The state’s school-funding formula requires that the Ohio Department of Education make up some of the losses the affected schools would experience during current and future tax years. In other words the rest of the state will have to subsidize Lorain’s school system. So, even as it raids funds intended for other programs, the city of Lorain also enriches itself at the expense of all Ohio taxpayers.

And this is what scares me. Imagine the impact if Lorain’s program is declared legal and every municipality in Ohio follows suit. After all, what politician wouldn’t want to offer similar abatements in his or her city, while raising city revenue and shifting the cost burden elsewhere?

By itself, Lorain’s program will cost millions of dollars to the rest of Ohio’s taxpayers. It sets a bad precedent of cities shifting local tax responsibilities to the state. If this public policy disaster is allowed to spread, the costs, not just in terms of dollars but also in terms of the damage done to the principle of fair taxation, will be far more than Ohio can afford to pay.

Ohio’s county auditors are responsible for keeping their respective county’s property-tax system legal and fair. As I see it, Lorain’s tax-abatement scheme is neither.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart is Lorain County Auditor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Ohio Forum. 10/08

By Cristina Page

Now that the national attention on Bristol Palin's pregnancy is fading (for the time being) it seems the only discussion it inspired was about John McCain's vetting process and, by extension, his decision-making abilities. But there is another far more important subject raised by the 17-year-old's pregnancy. For decades, teen pregnancy has been viewed as a problem, a danger to the children of young mothers and a hurdle to the success of the adolescent mothers.

But recent public displays of contraceptive failure by girls of visibility and means gives the misleading appearance that teen motherhood might be a lifestyle upgrade. Clearly one of the exacerbating factors is that someone like Bristol Palin is part of what feels like a growing trend: the normalizing of teen pregnancy and teen motherhood in the United States. Bristol is not alone in suggesting that to be a 17-year-old mother is not only acceptable, but exciting. Last year Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's then 16-year-old sister, had her baby. (The Spears', it's worth noting, were proponents of abstinence-only too.) Last year also featured the movie Juno, in which star Ellen Page played a 16-year-old whose quick-wit and sarcasm made her unwanted pregnancy seem as challenging as a bad case of acne. The attention garnered by each of these girls stripped away layers of what had for years been cautions against this very fate.

None of these occasions has prompted examination of the risks and damage caused by teen pregnancy and teen motherhood. And, it should be noted, recent data show that the rate of teen pregnancy in the U.S., which is already the highest in the developed world, is on the rise. The last year witnessed a dramatic 3 percent spike in the number of pubescent parents.

Of course, Bristol, Juno and Jamie Lynn don't exemplify the average American girl confronting unintended pregnancy. And the problem is the average American teen doesn't really know that. The choice the fictional character Juno made, adoption, is almost a fiction these days too. Approximately 1 percent of pregnant teens opt to give a child up for adoption. And then Jamie Lynn Spears is a teen millionaire. Her pregnancy only enhanced her fortune. The first photos of her baby fetched a million dollars. The spotlight on Bristol Palin offers false comfort too. Bristol has resources available to her that none of her pregnant teen counterparts does -- like the secret service, the ultimate nanny.

The average teen girl would be led to believe that teen pregnancy doesn't ruin adolescence, but instead brings lavish amounts of attention, an adoring and adorable teen father, and an endless supply of parental support. The reality for most teen moms could not be more different.

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, eight in 10 teen fathers do not marry the mother of their first child. Kids without involved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, twice as likely to end up in jail, and two to three times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. Children who live apart from their fathers are also five times more likely to be poor than children with both parents at home.

Teen mothers, typically left to go it alone, are less likely to complete the education necessary to qualify for a well-paying job -- in fact, parenthood is the leading cause of school drop out among teen girls. College then becomes the remotest of possibilities. Less than two percent of mothers who have children before age 18 complete college by the age of 30.

Too often heartbreaking sacrifices are also foisted on the child of a teenage mom. The children of teen mothers are more likely to be born prematurely at low birthweight compared to children of older mothers, which raises the probability of infant death and disease, mental retardation, and mental illness. Children of teen mothers are 50 percent more likely to repeat a grade and are less likely to complete high school. The children of teen parents also suffer higher rates of abuse and neglect (two times higher).

Teen girls and their children are not the only ones paying dearly. Teen childbearing in the United States costs taxpayers (federal, state, and local) approximately $9.1 billion each year. Most of the costs are associated with services to address the negative consequences detailed above.

The issue of teen pregnancy needs to be taken seriously and there's no better time than an election year to demand that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics and the War on Sex and spokesperson for BirthControlWatch.org.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 10/08

By Doug Doerrfeld

Sweden recently set on a path to become the world’s first “oil-free economy” within 15 years by replacing all fossil fuels with renewables. As a result, entrepreneurs rushed to develop new ways of generating energy from the wind, sun and tides, from wood chips, agricultural waste, and garbage. Economic growth rates climbed. We learned that when nations "decarbonizes," their economies reap immediate rewards.

In recent weeks we’ve heard significant announcements in solar breakthroughs, from gigantic generating plants to new ways to store solar energy. We are on the threshold of the day when nearly every Kentucky home and business could be generating electricity and hot water.

With technology changing so fast, with renewable energy poised to deliver significant levels of power on a cost-competitive basis, Gov. Steve Beshear was right to ask the Energy Cabinet to develop a new comprehensive energy plan. Though Kentucky’s current plan is just a few years old, it relies heavily on coal and does more to reinforce old power (both energy production and the politically entrenched) than to transform our economy.

A good plan will not only cleanly generate the energy needed to meet the needs of Kentuckians, it will also improve our quality of life. "With good policies and strong investments that prepare people who most need work for the work that most needs to be done, green jobs can fight poverty and global warming pollution at the same time," a University of Massachusetts report pointed out.

Kentuckians For The Commonwealth offers three standards by which we will judge a new energy plan.

First, it must do no more harm and work to stop the harm now being done. The same week Gov. Beshear asked for a new energy plan the city of Louisville issued several air quality alerts. These air-borne toxins hurt people and put some in the hospital. Rural areas are also hardly immune to these dangers. Mammoth Cave is the fifth most polluted national park, largely because of coal power plants in western Kentucky.

On the other end of the coal cycle, more mining with the continued lack of effective enforcement of mining laws means unabated destruction of mountains, forests and streams. More coal might feed the frenzy for short-term energy, but do so at the cost of our ecological health and economic well-being. The state ignores its own Division of Water reports about the degradation of water quality resulting from radical strip mining and continues allowing the intentional destruction of streams -- another example that the “energy at any cost” mentality still rules in the state capitol.

Second, any plan must make sure affordable energy remains accessible to all Kentuckians. Kentucky’s past and present dependence on coal for electricity in a carbon constrained future looms as a menacing financial and environmental liability. New coal plants are expensive and will continue the upward spiral of electricity rates. Experimental coal sequestration technology, decades away, could increase the cost of electricity another 50 to 80 percent. Clearly, this path is making electricity less accessible to lower income families and creating a burden for small businesses.

Energy accessibility and security demand that we look toward sources that provide the greatest price and supply stability.

Third, we must take advantage of the growing green economy or we face being left behind. A recent Apollo Alliance report showed that investment in a clean and efficient economy would "lead to over 3 million new green-collar jobs, stimulate $1.4 trillion in new GDP, add billions in personal income and retail sales, produce $284 billion in net energy savings, all while generating sufficient returns to the U.S. treasury to pay for itself over 10 years." How much of this will Kentucky capture, or will it go to other states while we’re still mired in old dirty power?

The state currently offers only $76 million in incentives to Integrity Manufacturing for 1,000 new jobs building electric cars compared to $250 million to Peabody Energy to create 500 coal gasification jobs. This may be circumstantial, but it is a clear indication of how our priorities must change.

Visionary leadership will see this moment as an opportunity to move Kentucky into the future that we have the power to create. But it will require breaking away from the old mindsets, the old political alliances and fossil-fuel submission. We have no time to waste.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doerrfeld is the chairperson of Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright (C) 2008 by the Kentucky Forum. 10/08

TEXAS LONE STAR FORUM

By Rebecca Lightsey

The excitement and optimism that accompany a new school year can fade quickly when a disciplinary problem surfaces at school.

School discipline is a serious matter -- particularly when it means that a student will be removed from the regular classroom for a long period of time, or when the court becomes involved.

It is serious for the student, whose permanent school or court record may be affected; it is serious for the parent, who must make sure that behavior problems are not undermining their child’s capacity to learn and that the school is applying discipline appropriately and equitably; and serious for the school, which must maintain a safe learning environment while constantly evaluating the long-term impacts of its disciplinary policies.

Texas Appleseed has researched the impact of school discipline as part of a larger School-to-Prison Pipeline project and found that:

• Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs, where students are sent for an average of 30 to 40 days for misbehavior, have five times the dropout rate of mainstream schools.
• African-American students and special education students are significantly overrepresented in discretionary disciplinary referrals -- sometimes at rates three or four times their representation in the overall school population.
• Where a child attends school -- and not the nature of the offense -- is the greatest predictor of a student’s receiving a disciplinary referral.

Studies show that there are fewer disciplinary referrals and fewer incidents of violence in schools where parents are involved. Here are a few steps that parents can take to stay involved.
Make sure your child understands behavior expectations at school outlined in the Student Code of Conduct -- and what can happen if he or she breaks the rules. The state requires that schools discipline students for serious misbehavior (such as aggravated assault or bringing drugs or a weapon to school), however schools have discretion to discipline for other problem behaviors listed in the Student Code of Conduct.

Find out if your school practices “zero tolerance.” Serious misbehaviors cannot be tolerated if they undermine school safety and students’ ability to learn. However, some schools adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to any infraction. It is important that Student Codes of Conduct specify that intent, self-defense, and disciplinary history be considered in decisions to discipline a student. Parents can urge schools to adopt disciplinary policies that take these factors into account.

Remember that due process counts. You have a right to be informed in a timely manner when your child is suspended, expelled or referred to an alternative school --and you and your child must be given an opportunity to present your side at a school conference or disciplinary hearing. If you have been given a reasonable opportunity to participate, the school can hold a disciplinary hearing without you.

Neither behavior problems nor disciplinary action should derail a child’s education. Parents should work with the school and the Disciplinary Alternative Education Program to ensure that students assigned to alternative schools do not fall behind and consider dropping out.

Individual Education Plans (IEP) must be followed for special education students. Make sure that failure to follow an IEP did not cause or exacerbate your child’s behavior problems -- and that any alternative placement does not jeopardize your child’s education or emotional health.

Keep track of fines, community service and/or court dates if your child is ticketed or arrested at school. Failure to comply fully can result in additional fines or impact your child’s court record.

Throughout the disciplinary process, it is important to remain calm and open-minded and to communicate with the school. Ultimately, a child in trouble learns most from observing how the important adults in his or her life -- both at home and at school -- handle these kinds of challenges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lightsey is executive director of Texas Appleseed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Texas Lone Star Forum. 9/08

By Laura Flanders

Voter registration deadlines are just over a week away in many states. Polls open in just over a month. In an election that could well be decided by new voters, voter registration efforts are in overdrive. But signing people up might be the easy part: after that, there's voting. As the last two elections have shown, just showing up at the polls isn't a guarantee of a smooth ride to the ballot box.

In 2000 and 2004, all across the country, thousands of voters were removed from the rolls, without their knowledge, in official purges of voter lists. On Election Day in 2004, boxes of registrations remained unprocessed in at least two cities we know about -- Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio. On the radio that election night, I received calls from Columbus voters who had stood for hours in line because of a shortage of voting machines in the inner city, even as, in nearby wealthy suburbs, voters were able to cast their votes in a matter of minutes. As one caller put it, "Jim Crow isn't dead."

Election protection and voting rights should be central to any conversation about the '08 vote. But a lot of tough questions are getting lost in horse-race coverage. And many voters are wondering -- again -- if their vote will be counted. In contrast to most advanced democracies, the right to vote isn't conveyed automatically with citizenship or coming of age in the United States. Voters have to prove themselves and there are no end to the challenges, from felon disenfranchisement laws to monolingual ballots and a myriad of ever-changing rules which differ from election to election and district to district. Come voting day, voters rely on minimally-trained poll-workers overseeing a myriad of voting systems. Disturbing doubts remain about the security of electronic voting and the privately-owned technology many districts rely on to tally votes.

Fed up with waiting for officials or Parties to do the work, this year, as never before, citizens' groups, and voting rights organizations are taking early action to protect the vote. A few months back, national voting rights groups charged officials in Kansas, Michigan and Louisiana of illegally purging voter lists. Voters whose homes are in foreclosure are also concerned that their status might be used at the precinct to challenge their right to vote. The states with the highest foreclosure rates, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Colorado, are also swing states where the election could hinge on tiny margins. Meanwhile, in Michigan, the ACLU has just filed a federal lawsuit against state electoral officials over statewide voter purge programs they claim would "disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters" -- many of them college students. Thanks to independent reporting and activist organizing, the Department of Veterans Affairs was recently forced to reverse its policy that would have stopped voter registration drives at hundreds of VA hospitals serving injured and homeless vets.

While the media focus on the candidates, voting rights advocates are focusing on the future of our democracy. It’s falling to nonprofit outfits like the Advancement Project to distribute state-specific "know the facts" palm cards to poll workers in many states. And organizers are fanning out. Twenty-three states allow early voting. Ohio has a "golden week" -- September 30 to October 6 -- in which people can register and vote all in the same day. The organizers recommend voting early. Avoid the lines and the worst of the chaos.

Will citizen activism decide an election? It just might.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flanders is the Host of GRITtv and “Live From Main Street.” "Live From Main Street Columbus: Will Your Vote Count?" is a virtual town hall exploring how the issues of voting rights and election security affect every day Americans. For more a full schedule of events, visit http://www.livefrommainstreet.org/.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

By Sam Oliker-Friedland

I need to confess a shameful secret; a sin of omission from last year that I’ve regretted ever since. I didn’t vote.

By most measures, I am a politically engaged college student. I read the news and political blogs every day. Since I was in high school, I’ve organized voter registration drives to help other students vote, and can sit for hours discussing policy and politics with friends and family. But on April 1, 2008, when Wisconsin chose its swing Supreme Court Justice, I was not a part of that decision.

It’s not that I didn’t care -- I probably had a stronger opinion about those two candidates than I’ve had in most elections. I wasn’t distracted by an important trip, nor was I refusing to participate in a broken election system. I was away at school. Between term papers and the less academic portion of the college experience, I forgot to send in an application to get my absentee ballot.

I wasn’t alone. I did an informal survey of acquaintances after the 2006 elections to find out who didn’t vote. If they didn’t vote, I wanted to know why. Not a single person told me “I didn’t care.” Not a single person said “I don’t see how the election affects me.” These are the great myths of young people who don’t vote, and its perpetrators will often point out with a concerned frown that voters aged 18 to 25 tend to have a lower turnout rates. However, one further statistic points us toward the real story: Among registered voters, 18 to 25 year olds turn out at basically the same rate as other age groups.

Unfortunately, the American election system contains hurdles which are particularly serious for young, mobile voters. Not only must we navigate complicated ID requirements to register to vote for the first time, but many of us must also apply for an absentee ballot. If you are from Michigan, Tennessee, or Louisiana, you may be out of luck. If you register to vote by mail in those states, you are required to vote in person for your first election. This is grossly unfair not only to new 18-year-old freshmen in college, but to displaced victims of the recent gulf coast hurricanes as well.

For those of us who can vote by absentee ballot, just figuring out how to get one can be a challenge. The request process varies state to state, and often even county to county. We need to figure out whether to contact our state elections board, our county clerk, or our municipal registrar. In some states, we can simply send our election official an email; however, in some, we must send an original form by mail. Oddly, North Carolina requires a signed, handwritten note requesting a ballot.

Particularly frustratingly are Kentucky, South Carolina and some counties in Illinois, which require that a voter call to have an absentee ballot request form sent, wait for the form to arrive, fill it out, send it back, wait for the ballot to arrive, and send the ballot in time to arrive on Election Day.

Elections in the United States are arcane and a clear nationwide snapshot of any aspect of election administration probably requires different information from each of our country’s thousands of voting jurisdictions. The challenge is assembling that information in a way that is easily accessible to voters, especially new voters who may be less familiar with the process.

Luckily, the internet gives us simple and powerful tools for managing and accessing large amounts of data. Those of us who have grown up with technology expect and demand information in a few clicks. We don’t like clicking through unwieldy websites, or needing to visit multiple sites.

Providing easy-to-follow guidance through a complicated process should be a first step. That is why some friends and I founded http://www.govoteabsentee.org/. It is an online resource that takes those who must vote absentee step-by-step through the voting process for their county or municipality, providing forms, procedures, contact information, and easy to follow instructions.

We must work to change the process to make it easy and fair. The more transparent these mechanisms of democracy are the more voices will be heard on Election Day. As with any election, there will be a significant number of new voters. A lot of them will be 18. We need to ensure that they and all registered voters can vote easily – and if necessary -- vote absentee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oliker-Friedland is a senior at Brown University and the co-founder of http://www.govoteabsentee.org/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

By Friedrike Merck

Sarah Palin and I have a lot in common. We were athletes and both became hockey Moms, we have held public office in small towns, we like to fish, (I am proud of my marksmanship skills but just can't seem to rustle up what it takes to shoot for sport one of God's creatures), we both have a can-do attitude and serious spiritual lives but we disagree when it comes to matters of privacy and family planning.

Maybe it's my independent New England roots or the tolerant Quaker in me that planted the simple belief that personal choices across a range of important life decisions, like when to have children, are absolutely a private family matter. The choices other people make about the size and timing of their family is never anyone else's business to talk about. Where I come from that’s called gossip. Neither is it anyone else's business how a family chooses to cope with the issues of dignity in dying, that's morbid prying. It is no one's right, in this country at least, to insist that there is only one way to believe in or to name a Higher Power, that there is only one way to honor the sanctity of life, that's the kind of holier than thou attitude that drove our ancestors from distant lands to this place of hope for individual liberty.

Lately we've heard the phrase "it's a private family matter" being used to protect the innocent children of candidates, which I am all for, but it has sounded more like a shield to prevent the media from talking about politicians' parading families than it does a sincere belief that we should all be protected from the uninvited bright lights, the opinions and will of others, including the government. I must have missed something along the way but, since when did women's medical decisions, and we women know that pregnancy is both a spiritual and medical condition, stop being a "private family matter?"

Instead of honoring the private discussions between women and their families, between families and their doctors, between people and their God, self appointed groups want to dictate the final say in matters they have no business being in. This dangerous meddling is happening in many areas of people's lives, from government intrusion into the private discussion of when a member of one's family should die to leaders who profess to know the mysteries of life itself. From birth control and emergency contraception availability to deciding whether an unplanned pregnancy should be continued our privacy is being taken from us because someone else claims to know better about how we should conduct our lives. At every step there are individuals, strangers, trying to gain control over our "private family matters" and I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Republicans and Democrats polled by the Women Donors Network show overwhelming support for allowing people to control their own fates in hospitals and at the doctor's office. Just as no one tells us which church to attend, which car to buy or how many guns we can own, we don't want to be limited in our medical choices. Voters across the country strongly believe that they should be able to make their own important life decisions for themselves and their families. A majority of Americans believe that government's role is to provide information, access and services to ensure that we can make these choices responsibly. If politicians can rightly demand a safe space for their "private family matters" then they ought to afford us the same courtesy and keep their noses out of other people's business and bedrooms.

It's important to know where candidates stand, not just about "choice", the now polarizing code word for abortion, but more about candidates positions' on a range of common but important life decisions. We must hear the thinking of those hoping to lead this country on critical topics like affordable and readily available birth control, accurate sexuality education and how they define and defend the lines of decency and privacy not only for themselves but for all of us. Yes, the mother from Alaska and I share many similarities but regarding important life decisions, personal family matters, I only claim to know what's best for me and my family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck is a portrait artist, a member of the Women Donors Network and a grateful mother
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

By Jay Travis and Diane Doherty

Eulonda Cooper is in the eye of the storm. A spirited, hard-working mother of four who lives in an affordable rental unit in the Kenwood Oakland community, she is being denied the safety and security that any hard-working American deserves. She sits on the local school council of two elementary schools and is a member of the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization.

In a community that has rapidly gentrified since the mid-90s, she is concerned about the impact the Olympics would have on the price of housing in her neighborhood. Many of the people she knew in the neighborhood are gone; priced out due to escalating rents or moved out due to the CHA Plan for Transformation, which resulted in the loss of over 3,000 rental units. "The Olympics cannot be used as a tool to finally push all of us out. I want my children to live in stable, quality housing in this neighborhood." For her, the fear that the Olympics could mean displacement...is very real.

The convenient opinion is that the people who have lived in this community for decades – hard-working, law-abiding citizens who work as bus drivers, single parents, teachers, nurses aides, security guards, police officers and other honorable professions…need to go. The Olympics are an opportunity to finally invest in the communities that have suffered through municipal, state, and federal disinvestment.

We have been concerned about this issue for a long time. Community groups have organized forums since January, and residents have clearly expressed their concerns around being left out of the Olympic process. Community members have met with local aldermen, the department of planning, and Chicago 2016 representatives to express these concerns, but to no avail.

This led to the formation of Communities for an Equitable Olympics 2016 (CEO 2016), a coalition of community and labor organizations, working together to win enforceable community benefits in conjunction with Chicago’s Olympics bid. Members include Action Now, American Friends Service Committee, Brighton Park Neighborhood Coalition, Centers for New Horizons, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Grassroots Collaborative, Illinois Hunger Coalition, Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, MAGIC, Metropolitan Alliance of Congregations, Service Employees International Union Healthcare IL/IN. We have come together to form a broad and deep coalition of South Side and city-wide groups organizing for justice and equity.

One major area of concern is Chicago’s plan to build the Olympic Village at the site of Michael Reese Hospital. Mere minutes from downtown, the 37-acre plot represents a potential bonanza for the city and developers and the prospect of hosting the games provides the city with an excuse to secure the prime lakefront property. The plans for Michael Reese set the stage for a land grab that will push out low-income residents and seniors in the area. The city plans on building over 7,000 units of housing at the site -- regardless of whether we win the bid for the games -- sending local property taxes and rents skyrocketing. With all that’s at stake, we know that it will take a broad and deep coalition to move our efforts forward -- to ensure that South Side communities not only survive in the coming years, but thrive.

Members of CEO 2016 have been intensively organizing and strategizing around the core platform of our campaign, which stipulates that affordable housing, living wage jobs and workers’ rights, transportation, public subsidy accountability, public space, education and public safety are among the issues that the city and Chicago 2016 need to address. To effectively do this, the community must be at the table. In a true mixed-income community, the institutions that impact our quality of life must be a high level of efficiency for all residents, regardless of race or economic status. As a society, we have failed at this.

In the last few weeks, over 500 community residents organized by CEO 2016 have come out in support of a process that incorporates the voices of the communities that will be directly impacted by the games. And that number is growing, as grassroots leaders insist on a seat at the table. Chicago cannot develop billion-dollar plans for the South and West Sides without any real community input.

So, in the Mid-South community that has experienced 12 school closings since 1997 and is being rapidly gentrified, the Olympics should not be used as a tool to complete the process of removing working and low-income families from the neighborhood. In essence, the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid is about the future of African-American and Latino families on the South Side of Chicago who are in jeopardy of being swept out as Chicago expands the Loop south.

Every Chicagoan should benefit from the Olympics, not just a privileged few.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Travis is executive director of the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization and Doherty is chair of Grassroots Collaborative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Illinois Editorial Forum.

By F. Scott McCown

When a child isn’t safe living with a parent because of abuse or neglect, Child Protective Services tries to find a loving relative to take the child. When there is no appropriate relative, CPS asks foster parents to care for the child, but foster care is always supposed to be temporary.

Even the best foster homes are seldom the ideal place to grow up. Even more seldom do they serve as a lifelong family. After all, over the course of their work, one set of foster parents may provide temporary refuge to hundreds of children, and they can’t all come back for Christmas!

For a growing number of children, however, foster care becomes permanent by default, with children drifting in foster care until they “age out.” Once they turn 18, the state sends them into life on their own, too often with no place to live and no one to care. As a judge hearing foster-care cases, I saw this all too often.

I was recently reminded of the importance of finding lifelong homes for children by an e-mail from a former foster child on my docket. She is now grown with a family of her own. She wrote me along with all of the other contacts in her e-mail address book to let us know that she had evacuated from Hurricane Ike to her mother’s house – a mom who adopted her out of foster care. She was doing fine.

Children who age out of foster care, however, have no such safe harbor from the storms of life. In 2006, more than 26,000 children aged out of foster care, a 53 percent increase since the federal government began collecting data in 1998.

We need to reduce this number by increasing the number of children who are adopted. The Adoption Incentive Program, created by Congress in 1997, is an important source of federal support for adoption. The program provides funding for social workers to recruit more adoptive homes for foster youth and to move children more quickly through the adoption process.

Between 1998 and 2006, this bipartisan program helped states move nearly 450,000 children from foster care to permanent families. But this highly successful program will expire on September 30, 2008, unless Congress acts.

Yes, there is a cost to the program, but there is a much higher cost to not renewing the program. Without the program, more children will grow up in long-term foster care, less prepared to make a positive contribution to society. With no family to support their transition to adulthood, many of these vulnerable youth will fall prey to homelessness, crime, and poverty, and we will pay the social costs.

With the program, more children will grow up in permanent adoptive homes, better prepared to make a positive contribution to society. With family to support their transition to adulthood, they will get jobs, buy homes, and pay taxes. Their long-term contribution will more than pay us back.

Congress has just passed the bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success Act which is awaiting the President’s approval. The Act renews the Adoption Incentive Program and provides more resources to move more children into permanent families.

Many children have been waiting in foster care for a permanent home right now for a long time. These children should not have to wait any longer.

----------------------------------------------------------------
McCown is a retired Texas district judge and director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, Texas, home to the Texas KIDS COUNT Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 9/08

By Sue McCollum

It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a giant squid?

When you look up in the sky while driving Missouri’s highways during the next few weeks, don’t be surprised if you see something unusual. You won’t catch a glimpse of Superman, but you may encounter a giant squid brandishing gas pump nozzles like a six shooter, Captain America or a field of sunflowers--all super-sized images with one central message: to encourage Missourians to register and vote in this November’s election.

Featuring the work of eight contemporary artists, 70 billboards with the language, “Vote: Your Future Depends On It” and http://www.artthevote.com/, began appearing across Missouri in the beginning of September. Look for the billboards on major highways across the state and in urban areas like Kansas City, Springfield, Cape Girardeau, Hannibal, St. Louis, Kirksville and Columbia. The billboards are sponsored by Art the Vote, an initiative of the Missouri Billboard Project, which is using art to inspire voter registration and voting in this November’s election.

The billboard images, sometimes subtle, sometimes provocative, reflect the artists’ thoughts on many of the key issues facing our state and nation, including fuel prices, the environment and the war. The billboards were created by seven nationally renowned artists and the winner of an Art the Vote online billboard competition. Four of the artists are Missourians--Tom Huck, Peregrine Honig, May Tveit and competition winner Karen Kay. The other artists, Annette Lemieux, Willie Cole, Mark Newport and Martha Rosler are known for their political artwork.

Like all art, the images on the billboards may receive mixed reviews. Some may like it. Some may not. But, whether you like the art or not, we all can agree on the importance of the billboard’s message and the artists’ desire to inspire young voters to register and vote this fall.

In many respects, young voters have the most at stake in an election because they will live the longest with the consequences of any particular administration’s decisions. Yet, as an age-based voting bloc, they don’t act like it. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in the 2006 election, only 22 percent of eligible voters, ages 18 to 24, voted. That means more than 75 percent of eligible young voters didn’t vote. Despite having the most to gain or lose, these young voters chose not to participate. By contrast, 63 percent of adults 55 and older voted in 2006.

In the 2004 presidential election, 72 percent of the eligible voters 55 or older voted. Though young voters visited the polls in this contest more than in 2006, their participation paled in comparison to other age-based voting blocs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 47 percent of eligible voters ages 18 to 24 years went to the polls in 2004.

One of the main reasons for the difference in voting rates stems from weak voter registration. Fewer young voters register. Only 58 percent of eligible young voters registered in 2004; whereas 79 percent of citizens aged 55 and older registered. The two greatest reasons eligible young voters cited for not registering: a lack of interest in the election or involvement in politics and missing the registration deadline.

The goal of Art the Vote is to make this fall’s election interesting to young people and to make voting fashionable, hip, the thing to do. If eight artists can engage young Missourians and inspire their interest in this election, Art the Vote will have successfully used art as a gateway to political involvement and voting. In addition to the billboards, Art the Vote is coordinating voter registration activities at arts and cultural events throughout the state this fall.

The next time a giant squid grabs your attention, remember that October 8 is the last day to register to vote in Missouri before the November 4 election. Register and vote: our future depends on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCollum is a co-founder of Art the Vote, an initiative of the Missouri Billboard Project, a nonpartisan effort organized to encourage potential voters to vote by supporting the creation of art that draws attention to public policy issues. To see all billboard artwork and for more information on Art the Vote go to http://www.artthevote.com/.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the Missouri Forum. 9/08

By Dr. Erik Camayd-Freixas

I was one of 16 interpreters who served both weeks of the Postville hearings. Unlike judges, prosecutors, or attorneys, I was present at every step of the process. It is my duty as an impartial expert witness and officer of the court to ensure that the court is not misled, and to bring to its attention any impediments to due process.

I have done so in the best interest of the Federal Court I am proud to serve, and with the conviction that if our honorable judges had known how this judicial experiment would turn out, they would have never allowed it.

During these two weeks in May I observed these flaws:

· Detainees’ quarters were not certified.
· The court failed to maintain physical and operational independence from ICE prosecution, and a level playing field for the defense.
· There was inadequate access to counsel.
· No meaningful presumption of innocence.
· Defendants appeared not to understand their rights and charges.
· Bail hearings and other due process rights were denied.
· The charge of identity theft, used to force a plea, lacked foundation and was never tested for probable cause.
· Defendants did not know what a Social Security Number was, and were not guilty of “intent” crimes.
· Guilty pleas were obtained under duress.
· Judges had no sentencing discretion, pursuant to a binding plea agreement.
· Sole providers, whose families are in jeopardy, now endure a cruel and unusual psychological punishment, the foreseeable effect of prison time on common parents.

Abridgement of process produced wholesale injustice at the other end:

· Parents, begging to be deported: put in jail at public expense.
· Proud working mothers: branded like cattle with the scarlet letter of an ankle monitor, dehumanized, and reduced to begging at the doors of the church, as they were released on “humanitarian grounds.”
· The town of Postville devastated; and the kinship ties our noble people are quick to forge with all newcomers, painfully severed.
· Families and friends separated.

I saw the Bill of Rights denied and democratic values threatened by the breakdown of checks and balances. And it all appeared to be within the framework of the law, pursuant to a broken immigration system.

Postville lays bare a grave distortion in the legal structure of government.
Post 9/11, ICE was granted power to wage the war on terror. But since 2006, it has diverted resources, even from disaster relief, to an escalating and unauthorized war on immigration.
The fact is our laws have not kept up with the growth in enforcement. Congress failed to pass immigration reform and ICE has filled the legal void by enacting its own version of it.

Now, we have a serious contradiction: the growth of authoritarian rule inside a democratic government. This entity can simultaneously wield immigration and criminal codes, plus issue administrative rules; leaving no room for constitutional guarantees. It co-opts other branches of government: Social Security, US Attorney, Federal Court…and uses appropriations to recruit local police for immigration enforcement: setting neighbor against neighbor, and dangerously dividing the nation.

With the help of local sheriffs, Postville repeats itself daily, while the harshness of border enforcement is reenacted in the American Heartland, with great collateral damage to our citizens and communities. It is a rush, to raid as much as possible, before Congress regains the vision and courage of the Founding Fathers to restore the law of the land. Part of immigration reform is redefining ICE jurisdiction over immigration and criminal matters, without impairing the agency’s ability to defend us from terrorist threats.
Our national unity requires not just comprehensive, but compassionate immigration reform, to befit the dignity of this great country, built upon the shoulders of immigrants, by their children.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Camayd is a professor of modern languages at Florida International University.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2008 by the American Forum. 8/08